To think that David Cameron should resign?

[deeedeee]

Presiding over a government that is trying to spin doctors and teachers into militants ,

Supporting a chancellor that has failed to reduce the deficit by his own standards and has delivered two hated and u turning budgets in a row, over the death of the British Steel Industry, is attacking renewable energy in times of climate change, is taking support from the ill and disabled is and NOW he has admitted benefiting from TAX AVOIDANCE????!!!!
This is all wrong. How many more years of this?

The fund was registered with hmrc and filed tax returns every year - how can it not have been adhering to uk tax law?

That's my point, it was adhering to UK tax law. That's just not a very interesting news story

Panama I agre a complete non story :)

It's not one rule for the rich and one for everyone else because anyone can invest in these funds - just because you don't choose to doesn't make anyone who does wrong.

Misti "I'll be clear here: I think there is a tax avoidance story, in the sense that Cameron has been actively involved in lobbying for offshore funds not to be subject to the same reporting regulations as offshore companies."

In fact....

The government has been instrumental in bringing in the most comprehensive set of global reporting obligations ever imposed on funds (both UK and offshore). The rules started this year and all the reporting begins next year. About 50 countries have signed up to making funds report.

apple so you're fine with people sailing close to the wind, morally and legally, as long as they're rich enough?

Where did you get the idea that I think tax avoidance is OK only for the rich?

Tax avoidance is fine and morally upstanding, especially for the less well-paid.

Isn't it amazing then, how a non-story has filled the broadsheets for five days? Now you expect that with the tabloids about z -list celebrities.....

What's annoyed people is that he didn't come clean straight away, but had to have the information dragged out of him. Considering he worked in PR before that seems particularly inept.

Ah yes, anyone can invest, as long as you had, what was it, at least £70000? I.e. 2-3 years earnings for Mr & Mrs Average. Not like an ISA which you can open with £1.00.

Peggy, I wouldn't say it's a non story. It looks dodgy as fuck to be in Panama even if you're not doing anything wrong. It's all about the company you keep. He's made it worse by looking as dodgy as everyone else by not explaining the simple facts as I outlined them.

On the other hand, the arguments on here from the Tory supporters - that it's fine to reduce your tax by any means fair or foul - is just utterly depressing.

I think the state is bloated and inefficient, actively creates an underclass, and consistently fails to deliver adequate services. We all accept this, it's inculcated in us to accept crap medical care, education, policing, roads, garbage collection, etc.

It is a non-story, but it does make DC appear greasy.

Why have they fo cussed on DC. Why have the press not released the names of the 6 peers sitting in the House of Lords who have also invested in offshore companies?

Peregrine stop talking nonsense - DC invested £12500 - nowhere near the 70k you are bleating on about.

Peggy - my question (as you well know) was WHY did he need to be in Panama - you claim it was trade in USD. Not reason enough as I and others have pointed out it's a piece of piss to trade shares in USD without needing to ge near Panama - so WHY?

To answer your question, I have no idea how much tax he may or may not have dodged. If he's telling the truth, it doesn't look as if he owes anything more.

The government has been instrumental in bringing in the most comprehensive set of global reporting obligations ever imposed on funds (both UK and offshore)

And are these reporting obligations as onerous as those on offshore companies? "Most comprehensive" only tells us that they are an improvement on what went before - not that they are "comprehensive" in any ordinary sense of the word.

I appreciate that you appear to have a good grasp of the subject - far better than most of us who are largely reliant on incomplete press reports. But it's hard to escape the impression, from reading your posts, that you're spinning - they read rather like a Downing Street press release in places, especially the sentence quoted above. (I'm not accusing you of shilling btw, but of having a professional involvement that gives you a blind spot regarding how these things come across to ordinary people).

accept crap medical care, education, policing, roads, garbage collection, etc.

And if not taxes, who or what pays for healthcare, roads, policing, education, garbage collection? Or do we only get them if we can afford to fund them individually?

Apple absolutely agree he looks greasy. The public is so entrenched in a mindset that he's done something wrong that there's no saving the position. Those of us who know exactly why it's a non story aren't commenting in the press because no one fancies by vilified alongside him.

DC invested £12500k which he hever declare in members interests. Nor did he declare the profit when he sold them. So when he personally lobied tge EU on offshore avoidance, nobody new that he had benefited, nor tgat he is likely to benefit substantially in the future when he inherits from his mother.

That's what this is about.

Lost incumbria he didn't have to register it - there is nothing in the rules which mention he had to register this investment. Don't take my word for it though - go and read the rules for yourself -

www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/

Wasinthelist he bought into his fathers fund, which was set up in 1982. The reason it was set up was because exchange controls were abolished in 1980 so people could take advantage of buying into foreign companies using foreign money.

Lol Misti, yup your comment, even though it's very nicely made, is precisely why i wouldn't run around in the press explaining it isn't tax avoidance. You're nice, others wouldn't be quite so reasonable.

No spinning on my part in explaining the circumstances of the fund - I have no involvement with the fund. No involvement with the government either.

I don't believe i have a blind spot (but i would say that of course!), the G20 have been rightly focused on transparency for the last 4 years. There wasn't any before. The global funds reporting initiative is a UK one and it has forced its crown dependencies to do it too, and it is very comprehensive, but no one can make Panama and the other 100 countries that are yet to sign up do it, so there are still plenty of places for the money launderers, criminals, terrorist and political regimes to hide their cash.
The sentence you quoted is just a typical example of how I speak.

I am only guessing at the reason it was set up because Cameron mentions the abolition of exchange controls in one of his interviews. As I said previously what goes on now is very different to the rules back in the 80s and for that matter the late 90s but you don't seem to want to recognise that.

Surely everyone who buys from Amazon or Starbucks or any of the other big companies who openly minimise their tax obligation are buying into tax avoidance - they are openly agreeing with Amazon, Starbucks etc.

These companies were secretive about their tax obligations and where they put money but once they were put in front of parliament they have admitted they actively minimise their obligation but I don't see a big rush of people not using these companies - where is everyone's morals then? Or is it a case of only bashing the rich?

Not good enough. Not needed to circumvent (dodge) exchange control at the time he was investing. Still don't see a single good reason for him to be in Panama. Either he was making a rubbish investment (possible but doubtful) or there's something missing from the story. Why Panama?

Wash theorist show me it wasn't needed - go on prove it, put your money where your mouth is.

Wasonthelist list not wash theorist bloody spell check!

Peggy - although it's not relevant at all, I haven't bought a single shiny coffee from Starbucks since I found out about their shitty attitude to the UK. I was a regular customer too, including beans for home. I now do what I should have done before and only use coffee shops that can be arsed to pay corporation tax, I also now buy beans from a local supplier who pays UK tax.

panama I think that fundamentally what gets people riled up is that Cameron (while not, as far as has been established to date, doing anything illegal) was using investment structures that were at the time poorly regulated and often used for the purposes of tax evasion. Cameron knew that it looked dodgy (even if it wasn't) because he appears to have sold his holdings when he became party leader or shortly

I don't think he did anything wrong as an individual; he's been unwise, and poorly advised, but he's not a criminal. The problem is that he is seen as representing a class of people who think that until HMRC win a court case against you (which they almost never do, as you know) then it's all fine and dandy.

I think you do have a bit of a blind spot tbh, I know from my own professional experience that it's easy to start minimising moral issues if they are routinely glossed over or excused in your ordinary, everyday work experience. (I'm an analyst/ economist in an industry which has its own PR problems and I'm very very conscious of this).